The risks of doing nothing, the risks of assuming the best from Saddam Hussein, it's just not a risk worth taking.
-- Dubya, Jan. 29

Let's get something straight once and for all.

This is not a choice between war and nothing.

Inspections are something.

Giving intelligence to the inspectors so they can do their jobs better is something.

Allowing the inspectors enough time to properly complete their work is something.

Economic and diplomatic pressure is something.

Direct support of Iraqi opposition groups is something.

Targeted military strikes to destroy known sites of weapons production is something.

No one (outside of the A.N.S.W.E.R. steering committee) is assuming the best of Saddam.

And it's completely dishonest to characterize the majority of Americans who are against unilateral war as believing as such.

Furthermore, it's wrong to characterize liberals as having their head in the sand, as the usually on-target Thomas Friedman did last week:

...liberals under-appreciate the value of removing Saddam Hussein...

...It is not unreasonable to believe that if the U.S. removed Saddam and helped Iraqis build...a more accountable, progressive and democratizing regime, it would have a positive, transforming effect on the entire Arab world...

...This is something liberals should care about...

Whoever said that liberals are pro-oppressive dictators and anti-democracy?

There are plenty of liberals who would be quite happy to see a real pro-democracy, pro-human rights foreign policy -- but don't trust Bush Inc. to sincerely carry one out.

It should also be noted that liberals have varying opinions and approaches on Iraq. As do moderates. As do conservatives.

There are liberals who would drop the sanctions. Who would keep the sanctions. Who believe war never works. Who would support targeted strikes. Who would support an UN-sanctioned war.

And there are conservatives who see Iraq as the most urgent threat, and those who see no American interest at stake.

Dubya said on Wednesday, "We're having an honest debate in this country."

Well, we are. But you're not participating.

QUICK HIT(edited Jan. 31 11:30 AM ET)

The economy has practically ground to a halt, as the GDP annual growth rate in the 4th quarter of 2002 was a depressing 0.7%.

This is an early estimate, and could go up or down in later revisions.

Now we are on the brink of a double-dip recession. (Though mainstream economists are not predicting one.)

As LiberalOasis discussed on Oct. 30 and Nov. 1 of last year, people often feel the impact of a recession after it ends, not during.

That's what happened with Poppy.

So if the economy goes over the edge soon, Dubya may be unable to escape the political aftershocks.

No matter how many wars he pulls out of his butt.

CLARIFICATION

A reader wrote in to point out that LiberalOasis mischaracterized the tax laws regarding 401k plans in Wednesday's column. LO said:

Apparently, Dubya thinks that the vast majority of these seniors are too slow to realize that most of their dividends are already tax-free, since their money is in sheltered 401ks or IRAs.

But to say that those dividends are "tax-free" misses a key point.

While no special tax is levied when dividends go in to the 401k, when 401k funds are withdrawn upon retirement, all of it -- dividends and non-dividends -- is subject to an income tax.

And that won't change under Bush's dividend tax cut scheme.

The overarching point is the same.

Wealthy investors who amass much dividend income get the break under Bush's plan. Most seniors, whose dividends are in retirement plans, don't.

According to the AP, Fauci said generics from just one company will be "among those recommended."

That could well mean that cheaper generics will not be a significant part of the program, and overpriced American brand names will.

As for the condom component, there's nothing in the news reports to suggest how this could not be for real.

But could some enterprising White House beat reporter ask Ari Fleischer: if condoms can help fight the spread of AIDS in Africa, why can't they help in the high schools of America?

And don't forget the cautionary words of Salih Booker from Africa Action:

They have become very good at the soft rhetoric, but not at the hard policy.

Spring War?

An interesting exchange from ABC's post-speech coverage Tuesday between reporter John McWethy and anchor Peter Jennings:

MCWETHY: Peter, we're getting some strong indications that by the time the force is fully assembled, it will be at least mid-March or late- March at this point.

So it appears for either political reasons or logistical reasons, that the critical mass that would be needed for an invasion force is slipping.

JENNINGS: And what would the senior officers in the military establishment say about having to fight in conditions that slip into April and perhaps even later?

MCWETHY: Peter, one of the conditions that they have been concerned about is the weather.

But just as fast as they tell you it is not fun to try to fight a war in the heat of the desert, they will also tell you that this is the best-trained military in the world and the other guys have to fight in that heat, as well.

And the US military is up to it, if it has to.

LiberalOasis takes the Pentagon at its word that the military can do the job.

But one also might suspect that troop morale just went down a notch.

Who Gets Tax Relief?

It seems Bush got a little over-excited in his follow-up speech in Michigan yesterday:

My attitude is, if you pay taxes, you ought to get relief; the government ought not to try to pick and choose.

Normally, Bush specifies if you pay "income taxes."

Because the fact is, he is picking and choosing.

He has chosen to reward income taxpayers (some more than others).

But the lower-income payroll taxpayers that don't make enough to pay income taxes, they don't "get relief" that they "ought to get."

So there's another question waiting to be picked up by a White House beat reporter: why are you violating your own credo?

That means there'll be more than month for any so-called evidence to be picked over and rebutted by the Seymour Hershes of the world.

Additionally, it means that the Bushies need to fill the media vacuum with another month of war drums.

That might push the anxiety level of Americans (and the world) sky high.

Or, conversely, repeated calls of "time is running out" could lead to the American public tuning out and not being fully prepared for war.

The only thing we can be sure of: the war spin won't stop.

FROM THE MAILBAG

One reader didn't care for last week's criticism of Rev. Al Sharpton:

Get off Al's back! He's the only honest candidate in the field...SHARPTON FOR PRESIDENT!

Another takes issue with an oversight in yesterday's Sunday Talkshow Breakdown:

I was hoping you would have commented about [Meet The Press' Tim] Russert's lack of follow up (surprise, surprise) when [Chief of Staff Andy] Card mentioned the SEC and corporate reforms...

...it seemed rather a large oversight that Russert didn't
ask about the [Harvey] Pitt's continuing to lead the SEC and the diluting of the Sarbanes/Oxley legislation. He gave him a
complete and total pass.

I would have understood if Card had not mentioned it and Russert didn't bring it up. But once Card put it out there as some type of achievement, it should have been challenged.